Rodion wrote:Whether you like it or not, the Lack/Andy/JP hold the cards and I see no reason to keep pressing them when they already showed they're willing to change the policies and award the medals soon(ish). I mean, the difference between getting a clan war medal now or 5 months in the future will not make or break my CC life.

I think it's pointless to complain until the policies are published. Unless they take more than, say, 2 months from now to be effective.

So, you're saying it's okay to implement unpublished policies that negatively affect players, retro-actively, prior to policies being published; but not okay for the community to wish for retroactive implementation of unpublished policies that positively affect players, prior to policies being published.

Rodion wrote:I said it's not okay to keep arguing over a medal that the mods already told them they are probably going to give you later on. Just wait. If they don't give it, then you complain.

I dont think anyone cares as much about the medal (if at all), so much as the excuses we get when it is brought up.

Sort of true, sort of not.

I care about the implication of "not receiving" a medal which can be considered as caring about the medal itself.

I care about the discrepancy between Chuuuck's Cup, which even has a precedent of medals being awarded before, and suddenly wasn't going to (or would have: 1) only the final 2 rounds awarded, or 2) only the final 8 participants rewarded - depending on which version of which story you read); and the Newcomer's Cup, which never had medals delayed or denied this year - and again, that could be considered caring about the medal itself.

But, yes, if we'd gotten one full story that had no conflicts from the first; if we hadn't been taunted by the idea that our participation in a skirmish series was "unfair"; and if each of the "Cup series" had been treated alike; then I'd have had less issue with whatever the decision had been.

However, with a prior precedent that did award medals for these wars, I think a sudden change to not awarding them, even if all similar skirmishes were equally "no longer going to" - it would have merited questioning anyway.

But as it is, there's an unwritten policy awarding one series already, and an unwritten policy delaying this series, so yeah, I think that still merits questions by whomever's asking. (and good luck with that )

Let me try to clarify. I always held my piece because Chuck was a part of EMPIRE and I was trying to be tactful, but now that he's with TOFU, I can say this without caring about backlash from JP.

When Chuck first came to our clan with the idea for this, he asked how we should proceed without pissing off JP. We ironed out some of the details and got input from a few other clan leaders, then Chuck sent the idea to JP to get his "buy in." It was very clear to me from the beginning that JP hated this idea. He fought against it, kept his clan out of it (yeah, I'm sure that was a clan decision when every other major clan has participated). He's repeatedly done things to try to keep other clans from participating, first by saying these challenges wouldn't count in the ladder, then by trying to hold off medals. This is a continuation. The minute he stops being a pussy, owns that he fucked up and is trying to kill this, despite it being the most popular clan event, and begins to represent what the entire clan community wants and knows is right, this will all be much better.

For Chuck's part, he has frequently tried to make this a CLA sponsored event. He wanted (and I brought the idea to the CLA) to have an "events sub-committee" of CLA members who were in charge of the major events (this, the Clan League, and anything else that might be brought forward).

I know JP has done an enormous amount for the clan community, and I'm not trying to discount any of that. However, his personal bias and ego have gotten in the way of this event's running. There is no reason this should even be an argument. Star has pointed out several double-standards already.

Lubawski wrote:Let me try to clarify. I always held my piece because Chuck was a part of EMPIRE and I was trying to be tactful, but now that he's with TOFU, I can say this without caring about backlash from JP.

When Chuck first came to our clan with the idea for this, he asked how we should proceed without pissing off JP. We ironed out some of the details and got input from a few other clan leaders, then Chuck sent the idea to JP to get his "buy in." It was very clear to me from the beginning that JP hated this idea. He fought against it, kept his clan out of it (yeah, I'm sure that was a clan decision when every other major clan has participated). He's repeatedly done things to try to keep other clans from participating, first by saying these challenges wouldn't count in the ladder, then by trying to hold off medals. This is a continuation. The minute he stops being a pussy, owns that he fucked up and is trying to kill this, despite it being the most popular clan event, and begins to represent what the entire clan community wants and knows is right, this will all be much better.

For Chuck's part, he has frequently tried to make this a CLA sponsored event. He wanted (and I brought the idea to the CLA) to have an "events sub-committee" of CLA members who were in charge of the major events (this, the Clan League, and anything else that might be brought forward).

I know JP has done an enormous amount for the clan community, and I'm not trying to discount any of that. However, his personal bias and ego have gotten in the way of this event's running. There is no reason this should even be an argument. Star has pointed out several double-standards already.

I feel like I need to respond to the baits here, whether you care or not.

I never hated the idea, show me where I said I hated it. My clan stayed out the first time over the concerns of how the rankings were done and concerns about how it would be run and organized. The handling of TOFU-KORT alone is justification for me. We (AOD) barely even talked about CC2 and we are currently missing turns in the Legion war. Based on our attendance this year, fielding a team wasn't looking promising. A few of us probably would have had to do a lot of sitting.

Please show me where I said it would not count for the ladder please. (Edit-this is possible depending on which ladder) Medals were not released primarily due to the agreement with Chuuuuck around the non-competitive concerns. I've always indicated that I was willing and going to back-track on the medals and that will get done soon. The privs and medals policies have been drafted and is under CD team review.

As for Stahr, she sent me way too much, it was more like a legal document than something useful for a clan handbook. It was really good work, but simply over-complicated. If we need to write legal docs for CC, I think she'd do well.

AOD's reasons for sitting out sound legitimate (more so for CC2 than CC1 though, considering how many top clans you saw joining the fray).

As for the medals, I stand my ground. I don't save PMs from back then, so I can't show you anything. Perhaps we have something in the EMPIRE thread from when we were drafting the idea and getting feedback, but I don't want to spend the time. It's really not worth bickering over. Medals should be awarded, the community feels medals should be awarded, so there is no reason why they are not awarded. The "non-competitive concern" is bullshit. This arena has shown how upsets can and do occur. New clans get to prove themselves, and even if they don't win, earn a hell of a lot of respect for a top-notch showing. There has not been a single instance of a clan farming yet. In fact, if there was going to be, it would be a new talented clan farming the bottom other new unorganized clans, but that would be passed along as competitive because they are new. The community can police itself and when they see bullshit, they'll call it out. You do not need to make executive decisions behind closed doors like this about concerns of medal farming. Clan challenge medals require a lot of work to earn, whether it's a tight challenge or a blow out. The organization and commitment alone is far more than most other ways to "farm" medals on this site. And at the end of the day, why should admin care if a clan has an extra two or three medals? All that could possibly do is create a happier client base. Before you give the "what about the losing clan" argument, think to the most recent debate about a clan farming with TOFU and T4C. Look at what T4C have been doing recently and you will see how that losing clan learns and develops as a result. It's a win-win.

To quote jp, "I feel like I need to respond."1) thanks for sending me a pm requesting I reduce the wording, jp2) here's the "too much" I sent... addressing every concern I saw that came out of this discussion about medals in this or the medals thread, using jp's format of penalties but following the established CC rules and terminology about what's not proper on CC.

stahrgazer wrote:Okay, here's a draft (the blue part is the section I thought you requested) plus some thoughts for those other sections... based, as I indicated I would like to emphasize, right out of the CC rules.

In the blue section, you may notice I built in subjectivity... but with the reasoning I thought logical to use, and that "systemic" nature I believe is important for consistency with CC as a whole.

Also note, I mention a formal ladder process but do not define it here. That gives you a chance to make your laddering process separate, because while I have some ideas, and you have some ideas, that process really belongs to a larger community than two people.

With the systemic requirement, the details as to which ladder process is best are going to be "more" acceptable no matter how "un"acceptable to any individual.

I used roughly 3 as the number.. with a warning. Using "one" is too few, it potentially limits a higher clan's willingness to give newcoming clans a chance. Then they may want a rematch (that's two) or a fellow clan that had beaten them may want a shot... but after that? That's where the warning comes in.

Giving a warning after a couple games also minimizes problems with the gray areas in any ladder processes you develop. If they can't join in OBVIOUSLY healthy competition every few games, then it's easier to show a systemic problem.

Major difference here, though: higher ranked clan may not receive a medal for a win (you've warned them they won't now) while the lower ranked clan WOULD. (Why penalize the new clan because they agreed to take on a higher clan that's maybe trying to cherrypick?)

Other other major difference is the one that we just ... ahem... settled, which is that the really fun competition available in multi-clan wars (tournaments, if you will) shouldn't be discouraged in any form, so any pending forfeitures for individual competitions shouldn't apply to tournaments.

Most of these ideas came out of the recent threads, but I also took peeks at history - especially when offering you ideas for the section you'd already provided.

Part 1 - Forfeits and PenaltiesThrown Games or Deliberately Benefiting from Thrown GamesIndividual

An individual who is perceived as having benefited from a thrown game or skirmish (for example, losing in one clan then joining the winning opponent) will not be entitled to any clan medal that might be awarded to the rest of the clan for wins directly after joining the opponent. The player name to be excluded from medals awards must be provided by the clan leader or war representative from one of the clans involved in the suspect lost game/skirmish along with the game number(s) that provide evidence of a player changing clans mid-war or mid-series.

Clan:A clan that is perceived as having benefitted from a thrown skirmish (for example, a player losing in one clan then joining the winning opponent might be suspected of throwing games/skirmish to the winning clan) may not be entitled to any clan medal that might be awarded to the rest of the clan for the questionable win(s) directly preceding and after the suspect games/skirmish.

One suspect game shall not be deemed sufficient evidence for an entire clan to forfeit the war medal (although that is sufficient evidence for the individual to forfeit a medal) for a skirmish. The number of games required will be based partly on percentage within the skirmish and partly on importance of the member in the game. Suspect doubles matches, for example, might be weighted more highly than a quadruples match, but position within the matches will count as well.

Accusation must come from the clan leader or war representative from one of the clans involved in the suspect lost games/skirmish, or may come from a Tournament Organizer if this skirmish is part of a clan Tournament. Accusation should be accompanied with notable games and discussion of reason for the accusation.

Intentional DeadbeatingClan wars should be taken seriously enough to make every attempt to complete an engagement that was fairly negotiated.

The numbers of players involved, and their personal schedules, may make timely completion of an engagement difficult or impossible. When that occurs, the warring clans should discuss the dilemma and the reason for postponement or cancellation of the remainder of the skirmish.

In these cases, no medals shall be awarded if the original games number agreement was not achieved, even if the number of games completed would have entitled these clans to a medal if that was the original agreement. For example, a clan war begins as 51 games, but after game 42, the clans cannot complete their war. This is an incomplete war that may be postponed for a period (no longer than 6 months) but will not be considered complete, and no medals will be awarded, until all 51 games are final.

If a clan is deemed to intentionally stall the series (deadbeat) for purposes of avoiding a loss against clan record, or to ensure the winning clan will not medal; evidence of this intentional delay should be provided. The clan deemed to deadbeat will lose all clan tournament privileges for a period of (3 months?), the engagement will be considered closed, and no medals will be awarded even if the minimum number of games completed would have entitled these clans to a medal if that was the original agreement. For example, if a 45-game war ends via deadbeat on game 43, the deadbeat clan loses clan war privileges and no medals will be awarded.

A clan that repeatedly stalls/deadbeats their engagements may lose all clan privileges for 6 months to one year.

Serial Clan Killing/Trading WinsClans that have completed a war may wish to re-engage, as one clan may want the chance for revenge; but clans that repeatedly war with each other might be seen to do so for purposes of gaining or trading medals. Any clan(s) deemed to be opposing each other “too much” will be warned that their next mutual engagement will not be awarded a war medal. Engagements that are part of a larger multiple-clan series are excluded from this forfeiture.

Noncompetitive Wars/Cherrypicking/Systematically "Farming" New Clans

Conquer Club understands that sometimes a newer, less established, unranked or lesser-ranked clan needs to engage more established competition to prove themselves; but also wishes to promote competitive engagements.

This raises the question of what is competitive, and what constitutes noncompetitive. Conquer Club has established rulings for individual and team games that define “farming” as, “the systematic targeting of new recruits.”

Few clans are comprised of ranks less than cadet, nor does merely indicating a timeframe for clan existence or number of battles made suffice to establish a competitive war.

Historically on Conquer Club, possibly due to the precedents set in sporting events, multi-team ladder events that help establish more formal clan ranking have no more than 16 teams which would imply that a division of 16 positions in a formal ranking is “fair.” That is for competitions, however, where the winner of a skirmish must be prepared to meet another winner, suggesting at least equal or higher rank. In individual competitions, therefore, the “16 positions between” must be more limited.

For individual competitions, clans should be prepared to meet those who fall within 6 to 8 ranking positions (roughly half of the divisions set for multiple-clan series) - once they are ranked. Until the clans are formally ranked using the ranking process, there should still be some criteria.

As mentioned, merely indicating a time-frame for a newly named clan may not be sufficient to consider it "low" in ranking. For example, if a sufficient quantity of members from an established clan split off to form a new clan, that new clan is still more experienced despite the newness of its name, than a clan comprised primarily of members who have not participated in clans before; although at that point, not having won any engagements, both clans may technically be “unranked.”

For many of the multiple clan engagements in Conquer Club history, two games was considered enough to enable a newer clan to enter the multiple clan competition; in other words, two games provides sufficient information provide an initial ranking.

A new clan that has won one of two wars would have 50% wins, and a clan that has won five of ten wars has much more experience with the same win percentage; but if the newer clan won a competition against a much more established (higher ranked) clan, then which clan is ranked higher is slightly subjective and can lead to disagreements about formulas used.

Over time, however, clan directors can perceive patterns of engagements, thus, can establish sufficient evidence to indicate that a clan or clans is systemically engaging in noncompetitive wars. Engaging in two consecutive or two of three noncompetitive but nonconsecutive wars, for example, would be considered “systemic.”

Any clan(s) deemed to be systematically engaging in non-competitive wars will be warned that the clan will forfeit clan medals for future wins against unranked or lesser-ranked clans for a period of (1 year? Forever?).

To encourage all eligible clan ranks to enter healthy, tournament-style competition, engagements that are part of a larger multiple-clan series with clans from various levels (where competition may be greater or lesser) are excluded from this forfeiture.

The unranked or lesser-ranked clan that wins a war that is perceived to be noncompetitive will receive a clan war medal for engagements that meet criteria for medals, even if the opposing clan had been warned they would not receive a medal for similar competitions.

Any clan that appears to be cherrypicking newer/unranked clans and not engaging in more competitive wars may lose not just medals for the questioned engagements, but also clan tournament privileges for (6 months? 1 year?).

Part 2 - Player MaximumsEstablished precedent is that no single clan member should engage in more than 25% of smaller (41-game) skirmishes or 30% of larger (61-game) skirmishes.

This number may fluctuate slightly depending on the size of the clan and mutual negotiations, but the result should be close to these figures. For example, a clan whose members are unable to fill all games in a larger skirmish, resulting in one player needing to join 31% of the games will not forfeit a clan war medal (providing that this was agreed in negotiations.

Clans that attempt to fill more than (roughly) a third of their games with a select few members or teams may appear to be conducting a noncompetitive war so may forfeit any medal award even if both clans agreed – Conquer Club has individual and team tournaments for that sort of competition, clan wars are intended to involve as much of a clan as possible.

I'd say it's only "too much" because instead of just stating "rules" I actually put rationale behind the "rules" which is what a MANUAL should do.

Boiled down, a "list" of my input would be:1) Players can change teams, but if they do, they will not be awarded war medals if opponents or organizers identify their games as potentially throwing the wars. 2) Clans who benefit from thrown wars may forfeit medals for those wars if more than one game is suspect; again, identified by opponents or organizers.3) Incomplete challenges will not be awarded medals. A challenge is incomplete if the original number of agreed-upon games is not complete (even if 41 or more games are complete). 4) Clans will be penalized by loss of privileges if they repeatedly stall or deadbeat their skirmishes.5) High-ranked clans that repeatedly target lower-ranked clans in individual skirmishes may forfeit medals for winning their skirmishes. "Repeatedly" is identified as more than two skirmishes against lower ranked clans, even if the clan participated in a skirmish against higher-ranked clans in between. 6) If a high-ranked clan is suspected of picking on lower-ranked clans, they will be warned; they will receive a medal for completed or ongoing wars, but will forfeit future skirmishes where the engagement appears "unfair." 7) Lower-ranked clan wins will get a medal for skirmish wins even if the higher-rank clan is subject to forfeit its medals.8.) In addition to forfeiting medals for the skirmishes, clans that appear to be cherry-picking lower ranked clans but not engaging in "riskier" wars may lose their war privileges.9) Organized tournament-like events where competition may be higher or lower will be awarded medals for skirmishes that meet the criteria for clan wars. Tournament-type challenges with mixed-rank participation will not count as higher ranked clans targeting lower-ranked clans.10) A minimum of ten players for 41-game wars (roughly 25%) and close 30% (20 players for 61-game skirmishes) is required to be eligible for a medal.

Last edited by stahrgazer on Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:26 am, edited 3 times in total.

Nothing against stahr, I'm sure she put a lot of time and effort into the above document, but said document's very existence is an excellent example of why clan wars are not nearly as fun as they were even a year ago. Other excellent examples reside in the C&A forum.

Maybe such precipitous decline was inevitable, given the explosive popularity of clans. No matter what the venture, there are always going to be people who ignore the spirit of the enterprise and instead probe the edges of the rules looking for advantage.

Nothing against stahr, I'm sure she put a lot of time and effort into the above document, but said document's very existence is an excellent example of why clan wars are not nearly as fun as they were even a year ago. Other excellent examples reside in the C&A forum.

Maybe such precipitous decline was inevitable, given the explosive popularity of clans. No matter what the venture, there are always going to be people who ignore the spirit of the enterprise and instead probe the edges of the rules looking for advantage.

Like deliberately running out of time, to avoid taking a spoil. A cheap tactic, that even a top clan feels the need to do

You suggesting we shouldn't (don't) instead of that we haven't (didn't)?

I think even the boil down was too much for me, all I got was way too much complication

Namor wrote:

Incandenza wrote:

angola wrote:

lord voldemort wrote:someone tl;dr this for me?

tl;dr

Good one.

Nothing against stahr, I'm sure she put a lot of time and effort into the above document, but said document's very existence is an excellent example of why clan wars are not nearly as fun as they were even a year ago. Other excellent examples reside in the C&A forum.

Maybe such precipitous decline was inevitable, given the explosive popularity of clans. No matter what the venture, there are always going to be people who ignore the spirit of the enterprise and instead probe the edges of the rules looking for advantage.

Like deliberately running out of time, to avoid taking a spoil. A cheap tactic, that even a top clan feels the need to do

I think this should just go the way of the fog rule that was so valiantly expounded on in your thread. Since there isn't really a site feature for it, then it just comes down to policing between the clans if they're heavily against it.

Nothing against stahr, I'm sure she put a lot of time and effort into the above document,

Yes, alas, it took an entire hour to consolidate the opinions gleaned from this, the Clan Medals thread, and jp's desire to make "clan wars farming" more punishable than CC farming policies into the document you saw. An entire hour! Okay, maybe it was 75 minutes. (The main point here is, it didn't take 2 months )

The even more boiled-down version is:Don't throw or benefit from thrown wars, don't stall, don't deadbeat, finish the wars you started, don't try to get medals by just picking on newer clans, enjoy clan war tournaments, and make sure a lot of people play the wars rather than just a handful of experts.

Honestly, for people who supposedly know how to read, I can't see what's so complex. It gets wordy simply because of definitions and rationale....and the definitions and rationale are all based on the majority opinion found in the threads I can view where the public discussed or questioned clan medals rules.

If you leave out definitions and rationale from a manual, you're left with precisely the situation we've had re: this Cup skirmish, disagreement as to interpretations that vary from situation to situation. If, instead, you provide that information right in a manual that the appropriate folks get to review before publishing, why, then, everyone can understand right up front what will and will not happen in a situation, eliminating tons of flack later on. That is what a manual is for.

Chuck, what happens when a clan fails to respond about sending the last set of games? It's well after the two weeks. We're trying to be accommodating, but it's going to be delaying the tournament and we would like to continue.

If it's just a matter of waiting until COF can join the games, we don't mind someone joining them for him. We won't tell Josko.

Lubawski wrote:Chuck, what happens when a clan fails to respond about sending the last set of games? It's well after the two weeks. We're trying to be accommodating, but it's going to be delaying the tournament and we would like to continue.

If it's just a matter of waiting until COF can join the games, we don't mind someone joining them for him. We won't tell Josko.

Now come on Mike, play the game, old boy... you wouldn't expect CoF to cut his holiday short

Lubawski wrote:Chuck, what happens when a clan fails to respond about sending the last set of games? It's well after the two weeks. We're trying to be accommodating, but it's going to be delaying the tournament and we would like to continue.

If it's just a matter of waiting until COF can join the games, we don't mind someone joining them for him. We won't tell Josko.

Who did you PM? Dako and Iron Maid have both been on holidays lately, maybe it got missed. There's been no talk in our forum or the EMPIRE v TOFU thread about it.

Lubawski wrote:Chuck, what happens when a clan fails to respond about sending the last set of games? It's well after the two weeks. We're trying to be accommodating, but it's going to be delaying the tournament and we would like to continue.

If it's just a matter of waiting until COF can join the games, we don't mind someone joining them for him. We won't tell Josko.

Who did you PM? Dako and Iron Maid have both been on holidays lately, maybe it got missed. There's been no talk in our forum or the EMPIRE v TOFU thread about it.

According to the rules of this event, it's an every two weeks unless otherwise determined by the clans. We started last batch just after the 4th of July. It's been 3 weeks. We were in contact before around two weekends ago and agreed to hold off until CoF could get back into the swing of things which we were told would be last Monday/Tuesday. Then we heard he was having computer problems and it would be a couple more days. It's been several now. Ninja sent another PM on Friday which has gone unanswered. I'm sure a lot is going on right now, but we do need to keep this moving along. If all of TOFU leadership is on holiday and nothing has been planned for round 3, that is pretty irresponsible and highly unbelievable. Dako had time to sign TOFU up for the ACC, I'm sure there was time for round 3 games.